Chyba masz źle przetłumaczone zdanie. Piszę włącznie w swoim imieniu. Zalecam nie korzystać z tłumaczenia Google.
I’m using the translator in the forums, which many use here. I’d imagine there are different words for “He” and “I” in Polish, as zrobił translates to “he did” from Polish to English here in the forums.
It’s best to make sure everything is clear for staff, as if this is about someone else, they may not send a DM with additional info. Staff may also not respond right away, as they may have to take some time to look into your issue before responding.
I see that you submitted a support ticket (#39178089) regarding this concern 30 minutes after creating this thread. Our team has responded to the ticket. Please check your email inbox.
4 Likes
People are encouraged to type in the language they are comfortable with to make things easier, if staff have a question or concern, they are equipped to handle that.
4 Likes
Hi, just letting you know that I have replied to Niantic regarding the warning. I’ve sent them a detailed explanation and asked for a review of their decision.
It’s good to know you got the email and are in dialogue with the team direct 
1 Like
Regarding the request for local reviewers to have more impact.
When you review, you get submissions from a fairly wide area, maybe something like 100-200 miles across. This has been in place for a long time, exists for very good reasons and works fairly well.
It gives reviewers a greater mix of submissions to review, which makes the review process a little more interesting.
It stops submitters/reviewers from thinking they should rely on their own local knowledge of an area, as a submission should contain all the information needed to evaluate it properly.
It helps to prevent abuse through voting rings. It is perfectly plausible that an area might have lots of trainers grouping up to vote on their own submissions and if they were the only reviewers that the system picked, it would be simple to get ineligible/junk wayspots into the system.
The downside is that things which have local significance could have their impact lost by reviewers from 100 miles away, but the way to fix this is to make good submissions with the necessary information included.
Regarding your rejections/warnings, have you ever located a submission incorrectly, are any of your submissions simply not eligible (and you needing explanation as to why), have you ever intentionally committed any abuse when creating submissions?
Rozumiem wasze ogólne zasady dotyczące szerokiego obszaru recenzowania, ale w Polsce sytuacja wygląda inaczej. U nas odległości między miejscowościami są znacznie mniejsze, a mimo to recenzenci dostają zgłoszenia z zupełnie innych regionów, gdzie nie mają pojęcia o lokalnych realiach, kulturze czy charakterze danego miejsca.
To powoduje, że wiele wartościowych, poprawnie wykonanych zgłoszeń jest odrzucanych nie dlatego, że nie spełniają kryteriów, ale dlatego, że recenzenci nie są w stanie ocenić ich kontekstu. W takich przypadkach lokalna wiedza naprawdę ma znaczenie, zwłaszcza przy obiektach typowych dla danej gminy czy regionu.
Nigdy nie dokonywałem nadużyć, nie głosuję w grupach i nie zgłaszam rzeczy niewartych akceptacji. Jeśli któreś z moich zgłoszeń było niewystarczające, zwykle dostawałem uzasadnienie lub byłem w stanie zrozumieć błąd. Tym razem jednak otrzymałem ostrzeżenie bez podania konkretów, co uniemożliwia mi poprawienie czegokolwiek i wyklucza konstruktywny dialog.
Proszę o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy i usunięcie ostrzeżenia, ponieważ działałem zgodnie z zasadami, a błąd – jeśli w ogóle miał miejsce – wynika raczej z nieporozumienia niż z naruszenia zasad.
If you want to post details of one such submission, you will receive detailed feedback from other wayfarers which would almost certainly explain why the submission is rejected. It is easy to believe a submission is eligible without realising what is wrong with it, but the feedback helps people to understand where they went wrong and to avoid repeating mistakes.
If you have lots of rejections that you don’t disagree with, then it would help you to understand these rejections.
Much shorter than what? I just want to highlight that there are many countries participating globally in Wayfarer, of all shapes and sizes and population densities. Poland doesn’t strike me as one that needs any special rules due to its geography. There exist much, much smaller countries/culturally or linguistically homogenous areas. This is why we always insist that a submission must provide as much context as possible and be clear to anyone reviewing it - if it’s 100% not possible to understand without some very specific local cultural context, what are you going to do if a Niantic reviewer picks it up, or someone foreign with their bonus locationin your area, or if a challenge happens?
2 Likes
Poland does require special consideration, because the layout of towns, local infrastructure, and cultural context are very different from many other countries. Your review system doesn’t take these differences into account, which leads to many legitimate local nominations being rejected by reviewers who have no understanding of the area. This isn’t a matter of a “bad nomination” but a system that isn’t adapted to the country’s specific conditions.
The warning I received is undeserved and based on an incorrect evaluation, so I’m requesting its removal and a proper re-review of the situation.
That sounds more like an international approach we encourage about considering the candidate in its surroundings. Something like a petrol station COULD be eligible in a hyper rural setting if it serves a community focal point for socializing, for example.
The review system does prioritize local reviewers and national reviewers. Primarily, if your candidates are rejected it’s because of the Polish community.
You have the opportunity to explain why you believe something meets criteria and then it it assessed by the community. They can agree with you or dissent. When rejected, you have another chance to provide more information for Niantic to make a decision. If still rejected, you can ask the community here (or locally) for feedback on how to improve. Remember, it’s really up to you to provide the key information to reviewers to make it easier for them to accept.
3 Likes
No one country deserves special consideration over any other country.
4 Likes
As Poland is the 9th largest country in Europe it is likely that the majority of Reviewers are going to be from Poland.
If you live close to the border it is possible that a fair percentage will be from the other side of the border but this is no different than people living on the other side of the border and getting reviewed by Polish people…
1 Like
This response still does not address the core issue and boils down to a generic explanation of “how the system works” instead of explaining why it fails in practice.
I understand that Poland is one of the larger countries in Europe and that most reviewers are from Poland. That is obvious and not a revelation. However, globally, Poland ranks only 69th in terms of area, so the explanation that “most reviewers are Polish” in no way resolves the problem or justifies the repeated, inconsistent rejections of my submissions.
A geographic or nationality-based argument does not answer why my submissions are rejected for technically or logically incorrect reasons (e.g., “poor photo contrast” when the photos are perfectly clear). Claiming that the situation near the border “is no different” from reviews on the other side also does not solve the problem. If the system operates the same way on both sides of the border and errors are repeated, this remains a systemic issue, not proof of correctness.
Additionally, I have repeatedly improved my submissions: adding clearer photos, contextual images, descriptions, informational signs, and correcting location. Despite this, my nominations were repeatedly and inconsistently rejected. This shows that the problem is not with the local community or country but with the lack of transparency and consistency in the review process.
Discussion within the community and requesting suggestions is not an attempt to influence voting but is using the opportunities that Wayfarer explicitly encourages: exchanging experiences and better understanding the criteria.
I maintain that my submissions were made in good faith and according to the rules, and the repeated rejections stem from system flaws, not the quality of my nominations. I expect a factual and substantive evaluation, not more generic responses.
The situation is similar on an international scale. Even in the USA, where the system should be considered one of the more advanced and well-developed, high-quality submissions are rejected for the same arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with the actual merit of the nomination. In practice, it feels like if I lived in the USA, my submission would probably be accepted even if the photo were completely black. These repeated, inconsistent rejections show that the problem is not limited to Poland or the local community but stems from a global, systemic flaw in the evaluation process.
You previously stated that “Poland does require special consideration”, my comment was to state that no “special consideration” is required over most other countries.
You are now stating that it is “on an international scale” so your argument has changed.
This might sound rude but usually when people state “My Rejections are Rejected for no reason” but don’t show details of these Rejections the usual reason is that they don’t meet criteria.
There is a reason that nominations are not often sent in reviewers immediate location and that is in the past people have formed “Voting Rings”. If you have a large group that think “That’s one of Bob’s nominations, I’ll Accept whatever it is” can sway the vote.
I would also like to address the tone and direction this discussion is taking, as it is increasingly shifting toward quasi-political rhetoric rather than a substantive analysis of the actual nominations.
Referring to “voting,” “majorities,” “groups of influence,” and hypothetical “voting rings” moves the discussion away from Wayfarer criteria and toward narratives about collective behavior. This is a dangerous oversimplification, because the Wayspot review process is not a political vote or an ideological plebiscite, but an evaluation of compliance with clearly defined rules. Introducing such rhetoric blurs accountability for specific decisions.
Additionally, I want to point out something very concerning: you and others consistently respond only to selected fragments of my statements, while ignoring the rest, particularly those parts that are inconvenient or require concrete answers.
There has been no response to:
inconsistent rejection reasons,
technically incorrect claims regarding photo quality,
the fact that I repeatedly improved my submissions,
or the lack of identification of any specific violations.
Instead, the discussion is repeatedly redirected toward generalities, hypothetical abuses by other users, and systemic mechanisms that do not relate to my actual actions. This gives the impression of deliberately avoiding the core issues.
If this is to be a fair and meaningful discussion, I expect responses that address the entirety of my arguments, not selective quoting of convenient points while ignoring the rest. Otherwise, it is difficult to view this exchange as honest or substantive.
Once again, I am not questioning the existence or necessity of system safeguards. I am questioning how they are being used as a universal justification, instead of engaging with concrete facts and specific submissions.
This has been discussed and the consensus is that some people decide that the nomination should be rejected then use the simplest way to reject. Doesn’t change the fact they believe it should be rejected.
We have not seen any of your photos so can not comment.
Same as the images.
Niantic does not want to be too specific as it could be used to circumvent the rules.
You mentioned that this was “Poland” specific, I only stated that Poland should be no different to other countries.
Suggestion: Make a new post in “Nomination Support” with the full details of 1 of you Rejected nominations and we can then give specific advice.
There has been quite a lot of unfocused discussion.
I hope that the dialogue you have had direct with Wayfarer has been helpful with the specifics of the ban.
If the wider discussion is not relevant but there are points that need to be addressed then perhaps a fresh post would be helpful?
To avoid broad difficult to grasp topics and subsequent general responses perhaps some concrete examples of problematic issues where discrepancies appear to have happened? This would be helpful as the terms could mean different things to different people.
2 Likes
This happens when people are responding naturally, and not with AI, to points that make sense to them and ignore other points that look like AI giberish.